MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909151008 · doi:10.1080/19942060.2018.1564702

Modeling monthly pan evaporation using wavelet support vector regression and wavelet artificial neural networks in arid and humid climates

2019· article· en· W2909151008 on OpenAlexaff
Sultan Noman Qasem, Saeed Samadianfard, Salar Kheshtgar, Salar Jarhan, Özgür Kişi, Shahaboddin Shamshirband, Kwok‐wing Chau

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletAridArtificial neural networkSupport vector machineWavelet transformPan evaporationEvaporationEnvironmental scienceRegressionComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)MeteorologyArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeographyStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evaporation rate is one of the key parameters in determining the ecological conditions and it has an irrefutable role in the proper management of water resources. In this paper, the efficiency of some data-driven techniques including support vector regression (SVR) and artificial neural networks (ANN) and combination of them with wavelet transforms (WSVR and WANN) were investigated for predicting evaporation rates at Tabriz (Iran) and Antalya (Turkey) stations. For evaluating the performances of studied techniques, four different statistical indicators were utilized namely the root mean square error (RMSE), the mean absolute error (MAE), the correlation coefficient (R), and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). Additionally, Taylor diagrams were implemented to test the similarity among the observed and predicted data. Outcomes showed that at Tabriz station, the ANN3 (third input combination that are air temperatures and solar radiation used by ANN) with RMSE of 0.701, MAE of 0.525, R of 0.990 and NSE of 0.977 had better performances in comparison with WANN, SVR and WSVR. So, the wavelet transforms did not have positive effects in increasing the precision of ANN and SVR predictions at Tabriz station. Also, approximately the same trend was seen at Antalya station. In other words, ANN5 (fifth input combination that are air temperatures, relative humidity and solar radiation used by ANN) with RMSE of 0.923, MAE of 0.697, R of 0.962 and NSE of 0.898 had a more accurate predictions among others. Conversely, wavelet transform reduced the prediction errors of SVR at Antalya station. So, the WSVR5 with RMSE of 1.027, MAE of 0.728, R of 0.950 and NSE of 0.870 predicted evaporation rates of Antalya station more precisely than other SVR models. As a conclusion, results from the current study proved that ANN provided reasonable trends for evaporation modeling at both Tabriz and Antalya stations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Applications of Computational Fluid MechanicsSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207